> If you choose poker instead, you'll just breed a gambler.
Huh? Chess is fun, but deals in perfect information at all times. Poker teaches a person how to make decisions with imperfect information, which is how most life decisions will be made.
It’s nowhere near perfect information because we’re limited. We have no idea what an early decision will mean later in the game. If anything it’s a game where the truth emerges slowly as options reduce to those that fit in our brain.
However, it is a closed system and all participants are visible, whereas poker has hidden surprises. It still has known rules. In real life (eg business, investing) the game rules are vague guidelines and you have power laws and pandemics that resemble chaos far more than any game.
Chess is the classic example of what perfect information means
> In game theory, a sequential game has perfect information if each player, when making any decision, is perfectly informed of all the events that have previously occurred, including the "initialization event" of the game (e.g. the starting hands of each player in a card game)
I don’t disagree with your point about our capability to use that information, but that’s what the game is about. If you have perfect information and perfect capability to predict what a move will mean in the future, what’s the point of playing at all? Anyway just wanted to point out exactly what the comment you replied to means by perfect information.
Chess deals in perfect information which you cannot fully process in time to make a move, which is not functionally different from lacking perfect information, and similar to most life decisions. What it doesn't have is asymmetric information and chance. Both chess and poker have formal rules unlike most real life situations.
Huh? Chess is fun, but deals in perfect information at all times. Poker teaches a person how to make decisions with imperfect information, which is how most life decisions will be made.